A provocative article, “Anchors Away,” by Jan LaRue at The American Thinker discusses the Constitutionality of the current U.S. practice of granting citizenship to any baby born on our soil. I thought we might have some fun discussing this issue. It’s made even more interesting and contentious since these babies have been dubbed “anchor babies,” a term some find offensive rather than descriptive. The portion of the Constitution in question is Section I of the 14th Amendment:
Section I of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
At the heart of the contentious debate over “birthright citizenship” is the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction of.” The author of the phrase, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, made it abundantly clear during Senate debates that it does not apply to alien children:
“It excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Likewise, Howard’s co-author, Sen. Lyman Trumball of Illinois, said that the phrase meant complete jurisdiction:
“not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Should U.S. policy be changed to reflect this section of the Constitution or remain the same? If we do decide a policy change is in order do we honor the past policy and let those kids keep their citizenship…or does the new policy apply only going forward? What about the parents of these kids…should they have to leave the country, take their kids with them, and get in line to obtain citizenship?
This isn’t just an immigration problem; it is a Constitutional problem that we must address and resolve if ever we are going to get control of our borders. Your thoughts…
1. Clearly the intent of the amendment was to limit citizenship to those people that are born to citizens.
Consider the comment:
“It excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Is it reasonable to accept that this means all persons born to alien parents are citizens EXCEPT “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”. That just doesn’t make sense. The commons in the comment indicate “or”!
The comment “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” pretty much sums it up.
Allowing for citizenship of people born in the US of alien parents is really twisting the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction of.”
So citizenship of people born to alien parents should stop.
2. Once citizenship is granted, even if it is granted incorrectly, it should not be reversible. All of the people that were granted citizenship as a result of the misinterpretation of the amendment should remain citizens.
3. All people that are not now citizens that are here illegally should be considered illegal and be subject to deportation; even if they are the parents of an anchor baby. The child may be allowed to stay if the parents can arrange for their care. Otherwise, the parents are responsible for their children so the child goes with the parents until which time they can return on their own when they reach legal age.
This does not mean that I am not open to providing green cards to illegals that can show they have been here for 5+ years, gainfully employed, didn’t get into trouble, are not living on public assistance and have not committed any “soft” crime such as tax evasion. They are guilty of being here illegally, and if they worked, they are guilty of working without a visa. However, if they have been here for some time and have not been a problem I have no issue with granting them a legal residency. However, I believe by being here illegally they have forfeited any chance of being a citizen.
Of course, all of this would have to be made law before implementing it. I’m sick of the laws being ignored. If you disagree with a law then you have a right to attempt to change the law. You don’t have the right to usurp the system and ignore the law because the majority want the law!
Re More Common Sense???
2. Once citizenship is granted, even if it is granted incorrectly, it should not be reversible. All of the people that were granted citizenship as a result of the misinterpretation of the amendment should remain citizens.
Huh? Citizenship has always been reversible. It should not be reversible? More Common Sense has no common sense and lives in some sort of weird fantasy land.
Pie: “More Common Sense has no common sense and lives in some sort of weird fantasy land.”
Take not on how Pie responds to anyone who dares to disagree with him on even ONE issue.
Guess who is all for anchor babies? DUH!
More Common Sense I agree with you for the most part, in fact it’s refreshing to read something that makes sense for a change. You wrote:
That would certainly help to discourage illegal entry.
I also agree that those who have been granted citizenship under current policy should not have their citizenship ripped from them , as long as they, or their parents, have been gainfully employed, responsibly paid taxes, and have no serious criminal record.
The responsibility to uphold our laws falls on our shoulders first and we have failed to do so. In fact we have encouraged the behavior through indifference, politics, or the benefit of cheap labor. Some of these people, perhaps the majority, have been here for many years and consider themselves to be 100% American.
This would be funny if it were not so outrageous.
Mexico warns Texas not to refuse its immigrants’ babies U.S. birth certificates
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/08/27/mexico-warns-texas-not-to-refuse-its-babies-usbirth-certificates/
Pie it’s definitely an illustration of the contempt Mexico (and a lot of other countries) have for this weak administration.
The question is, what are they going to do about it if Texas tells them to stuff it?
They will do just exactly what the Mexican elite and the drug lords who own them have always done. Dump their poor and criminals on the US.
I’m curious about something. There has been much posting in support of The Donald’s policies, without any invocation of the diety himself. What’s that about?
Sometimes you just have to laugh at Chris. What a stooge.
Libby: “There has been much posting in support of The Donald’s policies, without any invocation of the diety himself. What’s that about?”
First of all there is no political deity of greater self importance than the O-man. His style just runs into the deceitful, sneaky, underhanded, phony category.
Second, do you mean “much posting” by PS or in general?
Trump speaks well of himself, brags with vigor, and speaks his mind but on a personal note his employees, all 120,000 of them LOVE him. Trumps employees enjoy VERY generous health benefits, yes…even the women! None have left his employ…why would they? Trump understands that if you want your employees to be happy you treat them well. Fortunately for them he has been able to build his business to the point where he can afford it. He appears to be a good family man. He has worked in the construction business with great success. A man like that must work well with the little guys on the job, unions, city administrators, etc. to make it all work. After the Kelly flap his daughter advised him to clarify his statement saying, “You respect women. You have so many women working for you, probably more women executives than male executives.” Obviously he has allowed the glass ceiling to be broken.
There has been much discussion about Trumps positions on issues and his responses to media questions. I don;t think he’s declared on policies; it’s too early. There has been much speculation about his candidacy and his chances to win the presidency. There is a boat load of controversy; he makes sure of that!
Does that help or do you have a specific question?
Tina: “He appears to be a good family man.”
Is this a joke? The man has been married three times, each time to a younger woman.
If Trump’s children don’t have an issue with their stepmoms why is it an issue with you?
So what if they have been younger than him. Would you prefer that they were older. “What difference does it make?”
Joke? I don’t see anything funny here to laugh at. Please explain.
Chris: “Is this a joke? The man has been married three times, each time to a younger woman.”
It isn’t the events in our lives that determine who we are; it is the way we conduct ourselves as we move through them.
When Trumps ex-wife gets remarried in his garden I’d say the man is doing something right.
Oprah interviewed Trump and his children on her show. Take a look and see what they say about their dad.
Frankly, I trust both Trump and Oprah as about as far as I can throw them like a free standing caber toss.